Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras $1299.00 ($1273 w/2% credit) fs @ amazon

Quote from jdramirez : http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/...mm-f14.htm

What ken says is barely fact. Please google up Ken Rockwell's reputation online. he is barely anything to take seriously. Goto a photo forum and ask about what people think about him and be prepared to get jumped on.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/foru...facts.html

Quote from jdramirez : I think he was trying to pick a fight.

I have better things to do than pick a fight with an armchair enthusiast of photography. <---- Now that's picking a fight.

Quote from tpatana : Show me one person telling 1.4 vs 1.8 is about same.

I'll pass. I don't think I ever said the 1.4 and 1.8 are the same and jdramirez never said the 1.2 and 1.4 are the same. The comparisons were made regarding price-to-performance ratio. Read again.

I'll put my flame suit on and chime in.

1. I have to confess I am a subscriber of Rockwell's "don't worry about lens/camera - just go out, shoot, learn, and have fun" philosophy. Putting it in the 50mm comparison, I'd be more inclined to go shoot on a snowy day, on a rainy day, or in any condition that may add more moisture to the lens with a $100 lens than a $1300 lens (heck, even in a $400 lens). I bet I am not alone as well. If that's the case, why should I spend 13x more to give myself an excuse to miss capturing some Hurricane Sandy moments? Doesn't make sense to me.

2. There are other reviews, such as this one from the digital picture, that points out that the 50mm f1.8 trumps the f1.2 in some scenarios: " It is even slightly sharper than the f/1.2 from f/2.8 through f/8 or so. It is very light and very small. CA is minimal."

Surely, it is also "like a toy" and has "very harsh background blur quality and flare is a problem for this lens".

http://www.the-digital-picture.co...eview.aspx

There are clearly pro's and con's with every single lens, and that is why I continue pointing out (as I did in other threads) that one lens is never universally "better" than another in all categories. Think the plastic kit 18-55mm non-IS is garbage? It's lighter and has a shorter minimal focusing distance than the $1000 17-55mm f2.8. Think the 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 is crap? It's one of the lightest lenses, is hackable into a macro lens, and can be had for $20 used. There are always redeemable traits to any lens.

In this case, I personally value the 50mm f1.8's price, weight, and size over the f1.2/1.4's USM, metal lens mount, and rounder bokeh. The ability to bring another fast prime that I won't feel bad shooting in the rain and without breaking my back is a very valuable attribute. Who cares if the light bulb in the upper right hand corner is a octagon rather than a pentagon? It's out of focus for a reason!

Either the 50mm f1.2/1.4/1.8/2.5 macro is a nice lens, it's just that the f1.8 fits what I want the most.

I think the "you need xxx lens because xxx is crap" comments are the most insidious ones that can be made to a budding photographer. Just go shoot and have fun.

Quote from sniperruff : I'll put my flame suit on and chime in. 1. I have to confess I am a subscriber of Rockwell's "don't worry about lens/camera - just go out, shoot, learn, and have fun" philosophy. Putting it in the 50mm comparison, I'd be more inclined to go shoot on a snowy day, on a rainy day, or in any condition that may add more moisture to the lens with a $100 lens than a $1300 lens (heck, even in a $400 lens). I bet I am not alone as well. If that's the case, why should I spend 13x more to give myself an excuse to miss capturing some Hurricane Sandy moments? Doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, i do have to say his viewpoints are definitely worthy when it comes to "Just go out and shoot" but alot his talk about the technicalities of a camera or what not are absurd and so it is hard to give him credit in one area and not another. I did also enjoy reading his article about how he affords his gear.

Quote from jdramirez : I know... but what I have read is that is an issues with physical damage. When the lens is focused away from infinity and then takes a bop which moves the entire AF motor out of alignment. I've had my 50mm f/1.4 for about a year and I have kept a hood on it the entire time and I haven't had any issues, though I do realize that is anecdotal evidence. I just throw knives. They can be recycled, have great accuracy (in the right hands), are super quiet, and you don't have to get a permit.

Depends on the state you live in...

Quote from sniperruff : I'll put my flame suit on and chime in. 1. I have to confess I am a subscriber of Rockwell's "don't worry about lens/camera - just go out, shoot, learn, and have fun" philosophy. Putting it in the 50mm comparison, I'd be more inclined to go shoot on a snowy day, on a rainy day, or in any condition that may add more moisture to the lens with a $100 lens than a $1300 lens (heck, even in a $400 lens). I bet I am not alone as well. If that's the case, why should I spend 13x more to give myself an excuse to miss capturing some Hurricane Sandy moments? Doesn't make sense to me. 2. There are other reviews, such as this one from the digital picture, that points out that the 50mm f1.8 trumps the f1.2 in some scenarios: " It is even slightly sharper than the f/1.2 from f/2.8 through f/8 or so. It is very light and very small. CA is minimal." Surely, it is also "like a toy" and has "very harsh background blur quality and flare is a problem for this lens". http://www.the-digital-picture.co...eview.aspx There are clearly pro's and con's with every single lens, and that is why I continue pointing out (as I did in other threads) that one lens is never universally "better" than another in all categories. Think the plastic kit 18-55mm non-IS is garbage? It's lighter and has a shorter minimal focusing distance than the $1000 17-55mm f2.8. Think the 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 is crap? It's one of the lightest lenses, is hackable into a macro lens, and can be had for $20 used. There are always redeemable traits to any lens. In this case, I personally value the 50mm f1.8's price, weight, and size over the f1.2/1.4's USM, metal lens mount, and rounder bokeh. The ability to bring another fast prime that I won't feel bad shooting in the rain and without breaking my back is a very valuable attribute. Who cares if the light bulb in the upper right hand corner is a octagon rather than a pentagon? It's out of focus for a reason! Either the 50mm f1.2/1.4/1.8/2.5 macro is a nice lens, it's just that the f1.8 fits what I want the most. I think the "you need xxx lens because xxx is crap" comments are the most insidious ones that can be made to a budding photographer. Just go shoot and have fun.

you need to work out if the 1.4 is 'breaking your back'...

Quote from expansionist : What's the point of this lens if you don't have a full-frame camera?

???? huh? what's the point of any focal length?

Quote from woodygg : Depends on the state you live in... you need to work out if the 1.4 is 'breaking your back'...

Maybe I should register my butter knives... definitely my steak knives.

Quote from tpatana : Show me one person telling 1.4 vs 1.8 is about same. For me: -build quality -USM -sharpness -2/3 stop extra light All those for only ~$200 extra, big difference. 1.4 -> 1.2 is 1/3 stop, sharpness maybe better, build quality also, and $1000 extra bucks. Not sure if that's worth the upgrade, but 1.8 -> 1.4 is.

the only thing this lenses have in common (actually two parameters!) focal length and all 3 are made by canon / didn't look into specifics - but an "L" line has solid (one piece!) glass lenses and built like a tank (literally) - btw - glass and calibration are, probably, the major price boosters - ! - not cause canon decided to get 1K more for the same lens - ! - optically and in every way it's a superior lens to other two (can't believe 1.8 got into this discussion!) imho - color and creamy bokeh are the main reasons (not to mention speed and reliability!) I would (and do!) prefer "L" series - at the same time I love 100mm macro / 50mm 1.4 / 85 mm all primes and non "Ls" - but I use 'em for B&W work!

bottom line out of 3 50mm by canon this is the best lens they make! now - if you want to drive kia, honda or bmw - ?! - is a different story!

Quote from jdramirez : I'm always curious why people want this lens. The f/1.4 beats it in sharpness and are there really that many people shooting at f/1.2? I'm sure there are... but still it just doesn't seem to be the best use of funds. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2...m-shootout

No lens is best at it's widest. So 50mm f1.4 will start to shine somewhere around f2. The theory is with a f1.2 lens, the 1.4 aperture is usable but with a f1.4 lens, you need to stop down further.

In terms of light, going from f1.2 to f1.4 is half a stop so that is a good amount of light. If you shoot a lot of low-light / no-flash pictures, then that half a stop might be worthwhile.

IMHO, the tool is important in photography (lens, body etc) but once you see people doing all sorts of creative work with cellphone cameras and other P&S cameras, you realize all the pixel peeping, tech talk and $$$ gear isn't what's it all about

Quote from sniperruff : I'll put my flame suit on and chime in. 1. I have to confess I am a subscriber of Rockwell's "don't worry about lens/camera - just go out, shoot, learn, and have fun" philosophy.

Ken Rockwell? You subscribe to the famous photogear troll? The guy who posts reviews without ever touching the gear? LOL!

Quote from sjsd : No lens is best at it's widest. So 50mm f1.4 will start to shine somewhere around f2. The theory is with a f1.2 lens, the 1.4 aperture is usable but with a f1.4 lens, you need to stop down further. In terms of light, going from f1.2 to f1.4 is half a stop so that is a good amount of light. If you shoot a lot of low-light / no-flash pictures, then that half a stop might be worthwhile. IMHO, the tool is important in photography (lens, body etc) but once you see people doing all sorts of creative work with cellphone cameras and other P&S cameras, you realize all the pixel peeping, tech talk and $$$ gear isn't what's it all about

thank you! you're the first person to get that. i was snickering at all those saying they're shooting wide open thinking that if they really knew what they were talking about they'd at least mention trying to stop down a bit to improve the sharpness.

Quote from expansionist : No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if DX is someone's endgame (i.e. if someone will never in actuality purchase a full-frame camera and will keep at DX bodies) then this particular lens is a stupid buy over a lesser 50mm. The f/1.2 is the selling point here (over the other 50s) and a 1.6x crop factor annihilates that added value.

I happily use my L lens with a T2i. Sold my 5Dmk2 long back. People have long argued about FF being better than APS-C and looking down on APS-C. Is it really better? Maybe. I think of it is as trade-off. By the same logic, anyone shooting FF is stupid when MF and LF exist. End of the day, what matters is what you produce and whether you like it or not.

Quote from Cookie21 : the only thing this lenses have in common (actually two parameters!) focal length and all 3 are made by canon / didn't look into specifics - but an "L" line has solid (one piece!) glass lenses and built like a tank (literally) - btw - glass and calibration are, probably, the major price boosters - ! - not cause canon decided to get 1K more for the same lens - ! - optically and in every way it's a superior lens to other two (can't believe 1.8 got into this discussion!) imho - color and creamy bokeh are the main reasons (not to mention speed and reliability!) I would (and do!) prefer "L" series - at the same time I love 100mm macro / 50mm 1.4 / 85 mm all primes and non "Ls" - but I use 'em for B&W work! bottom line out of 3 50mm by canon this is the best lens they make! now - if you want to drive kia, honda or bmw - ?! - is a different story!

Per DPreview... both have 8 blades for the aperture, but the f/1.2 is circular so the bokeh is better (and I realize there is no way to quantify that, but I'm willing to concede this point).

Both have 8 elements (or 8 pieces of glass that make up the lens, so no... not just one solid piece.

AF motor for the f/1.2 is 1000% better because it is less prone to failure. I'm not trying to disparage the f/1.2... but it seems as though people are trying to assert there are differences between the lenses that don't actually exist.

Quote from woodygg : thank you! you're the first person to get that. i was snickering at all those saying they're shooting wide open thinking that if they really knew what they were talking about they'd at least mention trying to stop down a bit to improve the sharpness.

Been there, done that. In the last decade, I have owned close to 8-10 different 50mm lens. From the legendary Zeiss, Pentax to the humble Canon 50mm f1.8. When I was new to photography, that's what I did most of the time - find a lens that is faster. I didn't really care if I could use it, I just wanted the brightest lens. Sort of like my 4WD with all sorts of diff locks, doesn't matter that it never left tarmac

If you look at 50mm lens, it is actually hard to come by a crappy one. The focal length lends well to a design that is cheap to produce and is of great quality. Then the question about f-stop. Ok, so you get yourself a f1.2. You know what's the DoF for that f-stop at 50mm on a FF camera for say, 6ft? Without using a DoF calculator, try it and tell me Keeping your subject in focus gets harder and harder with a shallow DoF. Issues of AF error become more apparent and depending on your subject you need to be super quick. Or, you end up with the ears in focus instead of the eyes

Not saying f1.2 is useless. It has it's uses where a f1.4 won't do but in my experience those cases are few and far between. You can always improvise in those situations. Remember zooming with your feet? Works for reducing DoF too